Forum:Grammar - can no has?
template on the page, or, in the event that a consistent tense is not use, the is slapped on. Then, the article is left alone, where it is soon forgotten about. However, in the last year alone, this policy has started really picking up articles with bad grammar that are never accessed, and just pull the quality of other works down on this wikia. To this day, we have 80 articles with bad grammar - most of which have been in this state for 6 months or longer. For this reason, I propose the following, for which the community is to vote upon: #'In the event of a page containing bad grammar be tagged with the or templates}}, the author has 3 weeks (21 days) to fix it, or request to more time to do so.' #'At the end of these three weeks, the page can be namespaced with an approval ratio of 2:1 in favor of name-spacing.' Should this policy be adopted, this will make users strive for greater grammar in their articles, or it gets namespaced. Thank you for your time. }} Voting (Closed) For (7/1 Sysop) #As per above #Sounds good to me. --Do not insult me. 06:41, September 4, 2010 (UTC) #Grammar policy is credit to fanon! I have never given up before. 07:01, September 4, 2010 (UTC) # Sounds like a good deal. --''SPARTAN-G023'' ''Viae Cohors Gamma Sparti'' 07:04, September 4, 2010 (UTC) #It sounds wonderful. --Halopediaman 07:32, September 4, 2010 (UTC) #I believe that there should be a grammar policy, but there should be some restrictions--RichardRHunt 15:43, September 4, 2010 (UTC) #I understand everyone makes grammar mistakes, but it's not like this is suggesting namespacing articles that have one or two minor errors that are easily fixable in three weeks. Doesn't seem harsher than necessary. Neutral(1/0) #Thought it over again, and you know what? I agree! It needs a bit more detailing.[[User:Tuckerscreator|''Tuckerscreator]] 16:53, September 4, 2010 (UTC) Against (8/4) #A Grammar Policy? You ''has got to be joking. - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 06:58, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ##Why would I joke? Furthermore, =P #No. SPARTAN-091Bureau] [Talk] 15:26, September 4, 2010 (UTC) #While I intensely dislike articles with poor grammar, you also have to take in to dyslexic users and users such as Chief Frank, who's first language isn't English. While articles with poor grammar, that look like the user has intentionally donkey punched the English language, make the quality of the site go down, some users coming to mind more than others, we can't apply a grammar policy fairly to everyone. Until a fairer policy emerges, I'll maintain an against stance. #I've got to agree with Ajax on this one. Besides, this looks like yet another policy that no one aside from maybe a single user would care about or bother enforcing even if it were fair. #I agree with Ajax on this one, an alarming amount of articles would be Namespaced including all of my ownEcho 1125 16:33, September 4, 2010 (UTC) #I don't see a reason for this. Bad grammar can be annoying, yes, but some users just aren't that great at english. We'll have to be a bit understanding. - #As per Jared and Ajax. CT Sig small #I agree with Ajax on this one. --Gunnery Sergeant Pete Stacker, 17:37, September 4, 2010 (UTC) Comments/concerns . I think those people who get rather abrasive about grammar should realize that most of the other users are here to help and not be rude.}} :You don't need a template to do that. In fact, if you see an article with poor grammar, just try to help the author and voluntarily improve it yourself. If the author is just being plain arrogant and scolds you for doing so, then inform him to improve the content, in a civil and polite tone/manner. I think those people who get rather abrasive about grammar should realize that most of the other users are here to help and '''not be rude'.'' - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 16:07, September 4, 2010 (UTC) Liam, I really can't believe this, especially after the number of times that I've had to correct grammar on your articles. (Aperture Science, being the most recent, comes to mind.) I know you absolutely love destroying other people's work with obnoxious templates and casting their work into the oblivion that is namespace, but really? This is ridiculous. If we were to enforce this fairly, I think Actene and I would be the only ones without an article in namespace. Please find another way to vent your misanthropic nature. Regards. SPARTAN-091Bureau] [Talk] 091, while I can understand your frustration with some of SPARTAN-118's past canon enforcement actions, nowhere on this page does it suggest the requirements for an article to be tagged would change. So therefore not every article would be tagged; just the ones that were would be dealt with differently. The proposed changes do not mention anything about grammatically incorrect articles being tagged, so I doubt it would be anything different from what it is now. You seem to think that, in addition to the awfully spelt and phrased articles riddled with grammar issues being picked up, every article other than the flawless ones will somehow be tagged. Everyone makes such mistakes but articles with typos here and there obviously won't be tagged, as you suggest with "I think Actene and I would be the only ones without an article in namespace". And Gruntjackal, the proposal does not sound like that. People assuming the type of article being tagged will change, do. Regards,